It really does not matter in the long run what some KKK driven podunk politicians from Alabama do. They can bear an ar15 today, and some neo-Nazi or just plane [sic] stupid lower federal court gun nut can call an ar15 a gardening tool. Just because they are either driven by the right-wing media assisted whim of the KKK, or because they are just ignorant or stupid, and they think that they can get away with making their own laws and constitutional interpretations, does not mean that their silliness will not be challenged.
Why is gun control so difficult in the US?
- Thread starter Saint
- Start date
It really does not matter in the long run what some KKK driven podunk politicians from Alabama do. They can bear an ar15 today, and some neo-Nazi or just plane [sic] stupid lower federal court gun nut can call an ar15 a gardening tool. Just because they are either driven by the right-wing media assisted whim of the KKK, or because they are just ignorant or stupid, and they think that they can get away with making their own laws and constitutional interpretations, does not mean that their silliness will not be challenged.
It's always interesting when US gun proponents trot out the 2nd amendment.
"It's all right and good that there are more guns than people in the US. The second amendment says so!"
As if that is the end of the argument.
The obvious question a sensible person would ask is: is this sacred second amendment of yours a good law? Does its effect result in a net good for the nation, or does it create so much sorrow and injury that it should be dispensed with?
There's a blindness to the harm that those who support the gun lobby all share. They are willing to ignore the great and obvious harm that guns cause in the United States. In the end, they are willing to put up with mass shootings of innocent people, the gun murder rate, the many accidental deaths, the gun suicides and so on, just to feel like they have personal power and autonomy in this aspect of their lives.
It's such an interesting reflection on one brand of the American psyche.
The fact is: you won't ever use your guns to defend yourself from an imagined tyranny by your government. Your citizens' militia would have zero chance against your highly trained and expensively equipped technological professional military, if it ever came to that. These arguments that you're the last bastion of freedom with your gun are little more than self-important strutting. And while you spend your time doing that, your people are dying, every day.
Will you ever wake up?
That isn't even the beginning of the argument. That is a misunderstanding of the basic situation.
It's not a law.
It creates nothing.
Before dispensing with it, have a better understanding of what you are doing - tip.
You're missing the point. Nobody is - necessarily - "ignoring" any of that, and that's not the tradeoff in play.
That is almost certainly wrong- they probably have been in continual use for that purpose for 250 years, and there's been no visible sea change in the realities of the world recently.
Right back atcha.
Or whom, exactly, are you talking about?
Last edited:
well, that is easily answered IMHO
yes, it's a good constitutional amendment as it empowers the people to defend against tyrrany and protect themselves. Regardless of what anyone else thinks about the 2A, it's natural and instinctive to defend your life, therefore it will happen regardless of anyone's written law stating otherwise. this is nature and it is hard wired into the brain.
The constitutional amendment provides a net good as well. This is borne out in the statistics as well as in experience, even though our nation is still young.
We can see that there is a problem with crime, but considering the sheer number of weapons, especially those that don't commit crimes, those criminal acts are quite small, especially considering the bulk of the gun deaths are from suicide and gang action.
These things are not likely to go away, either, as our species will always have outliers in society that create fear and havoc, especially so long as we are predatory and we don't ever actually address the violence issue in the species (because we're targeting the tool, not the core problem. It will lead to targeting other lesser weapons after guns)
1- blatantly false claim based upon your biased interpretation of media reports
2- just becuase you think a person who supports the 2A is callous and lacks empathy doesn't mean we all do. More to the point, targeting a whole group of people because you have a biased opinion of that group is prejudicial and smacks of ignorance of reality. Some of us posters know first hand what horrors the gun can bring, but we also know first hand what they can do to help save lives.
3- one of the biggest reasons that no middle ground can be found between the groups to solve the problem is that the fanatics target the other side using prejudiced statements eliciting anger, frustration and worse which then leads to a lack of ability of anyone to actually accept the other person's ideas.
4- when you state we're "willing to put up with mass shootings of innocent people", it's an attempt to bully the other side into accepting your terms. if they don't you can point to them and call them monsters, otherwise they would accept your beliefs.
This is no different than what cults and religion do when they're brain-washing new recruits - you produce a common theme, attempt to deliver it in a way that makes them the monster (or wrong) if they disagree, then keep repeating it till they're ostracized or they accept your beliefs.
5- The problem isn't the gun: it's the actions taken with the gun. when you address the core problem it will have a much more profound effect on suicides, accidents, crime and more. responsibility is a major part of the problem with enforcement and funding following closely after...
assumption based upon ignorance of the civil war, 18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) signed on June 18, 1878 by President Rutherford B. Hayes and ATP 3-39.33 "Civil Disturbances" US Army training primer.
if it came down to a tyrranical government, you can't just assume that the Military would support the government wholeheartedly and fight against it's own people.
- ATP 3-39.33
more to the point, even the oath of enlistment requires military members to protect the Constitution against any and all aggressors, foreign or domestic. Currently, the oath is listed as:
One of the primary teaching points when enlisting is the necessity to obey "lawful" orders. Blind obedience is frowned upon and (thanks to Viet Nam) obedience to unlawful orders that violate UCMJ, the Geneva Convention and the Rules of Engagement can be prosecuted and the individual cannot simply blame "following orders".
IOW - it is far, far more likely that there would be a civil war with Military and civilians fighting Military and civilians of the opposite faction.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
OK
I never swore the oath as posted herein----I made no secret of that fact---and reiterated that when getting my top-secret +++clearances. (nobody seemed to care)
(the word "lawful" was not included--which left me with a potential dilemma) What really amazed me was that, in a room with about 30 other inductees no one else seemed to notice that.
(one curious point---Imagine a troop of young soldiers debating with each other whether the order just given was "lawful".)
The posse comitatus act of 1878 might be worth reading.
Is this why the "national guard" is still nominally under the control of the states?
How did baby Bush circumvent this?
..........................
Meanwhile, it is a very small percent of the population that are prone to violence. In my entire adult life, I have only been physically attacked once, by some damned fool who was wholly unprepared for the consequence of his action.
It seems that some folks would have us eviscerate our constitution, and/or live our lives as though these random acts of violence were more common.
Beware of drawing conclusions from media hype--------It does not represent the bulk of reality.
iceaura:
Predictable.
Predictable.
What are the Constitution and its Amendments, if not legal documents? Do tell.
It creates the free-for-all situation of out-of-control gun possession and use that we see in the US.
More guns means more misuse of guns. (Is it misuse of a gun to use it to kill? That's what they're made for, actually.) The free-for-all situation you have with guns is madness.
Good to hear that you're defending your country from tyranny, iceaura.
I'm talking about you - the guy sitting there arguing that US gun culture is a net positive for your nation.
Truck Captain Stumpy:
Out of interest, when was the last time you found it necessary to use a gun to protect yourself?
Have you ever compared the gun death statistics in the United States to those of virtually any other western nation? Perhaps you should.
How does making guns more accessible help to address the violence issue of the species, exactly? It doesn't seem to be working too well for y'all in the United States, when you compare otherwise-similar nations.
You know, I can't force you and iceaura to change your minds. I can't bully you into it. You'll either come to it yourselves, or you won't. It's part of that same blindness I talked about before to cry "bully" every time somebody suggests you'd be better off controlling your guns better than you are. From an outsider's perspective, it really is a no brainer. But from where you and iceaura are standing?
"Oh, we can't control crazy people. If only we could do something to stop the crazies shooting innocent people with guns! But there will always be crazy people out there. What we really need to do is to work on the core problem of stopping the crazy in people. Until we've solved that problem, there's no point in turning our attention to the issue of how readily available guns are."
Replace "crazy people" with "criminals" and you can run the same argument. We must fight crime at the "core" before we can think about gun control.
Yeah, right.
Here's an idea: what if you made it more difficult for everybody to buy a gun? Then it would be more difficult for crazy people to buy a gun, and for criminals to buy a gun. And gun violence might decrease as a result. No, that couldn't be right!
Wait a minute. This defence is going to happen regardless of whether you have a 2nd amendment? Then why do you need it?
Out of interest, when was the last time you found it necessary to use a gun to protect yourself?
Which statistics are you looking at?
Have you ever compared the gun death statistics in the United States to those of virtually any other western nation? Perhaps you should.
It's okay with you if guns are regularly used for suicides, and if gang members kill each other with guns?
Hmmm.... So your argument is that humans are a violent species, so it doesn't hurt to freely distribute weapons that allow them easily to enact violence on themselves and others. Is that right?
How does making guns more accessible help to address the violence issue of the species, exactly? It doesn't seem to be working too well for y'all in the United States, when you compare otherwise-similar nations.
James R said:
Which claim was false?Truck Captain Stumpy said:
I didn't say that. I said you're willing to put up with mass shootings of innocent people etc. in order to feel like you have personal power and autonomy. You even said yourself what you think 2A does for you: "it's a good constitutional amendment as it empowers the people to defend against tyrrany and protect themselves." You think it empowers you. So, I guess that claim of mine was true enough.
Do you feel like you have to defend yourself against my tyranny, now, because I dare to express an opinion on your second amendment? Look at the language you use: targeted. On the one hand, you want to feel powerful, and on the other hand you're deathly afraid of your fellow citizens. Add the two together and it's no wonder you and iceaura love your guns.
Tell me how private gun ownership saves lives. Are you going to tell me that you protecting yourself against burglars justifies the death toll your guns collectively take?
Last time I checked, the NRA was not taking many steps to compromise on their extreme stance regarding guns. Thoughts and prayers every time there is a mass shooting, but never any meaningful new restrictions on guns. Why is that?
But it's true. You are willing to put up with mass shootings, because you refuse to take obvious steps in terms of gun control to reduce the incidence of such shootings. And when and outsider states the obvious, you get all defensive and claim you're being bullied.
You know, I can't force you and iceaura to change your minds. I can't bully you into it. You'll either come to it yourselves, or you won't. It's part of that same blindness I talked about before to cry "bully" every time somebody suggests you'd be better off controlling your guns better than you are. From an outsider's perspective, it really is a no brainer. But from where you and iceaura are standing?
Listen to yourself. Suddenly I'm a cult leader trying to brainwash you to take away your precious guns. Reality check, please.
That particular rationalisation is another common symptom of the malady of the gun proponent.
"Oh, we can't control crazy people. If only we could do something to stop the crazies shooting innocent people with guns! But there will always be crazy people out there. What we really need to do is to work on the core problem of stopping the crazy in people. Until we've solved that problem, there's no point in turning our attention to the issue of how readily available guns are."
Replace "crazy people" with "criminals" and you can run the same argument. We must fight crime at the "core" before we can think about gun control.
Yeah, right.
Here's an idea: what if you made it more difficult for everybody to buy a gun? Then it would be more difficult for crazy people to buy a gun, and for criminals to buy a gun. And gun violence might decrease as a result. No, that couldn't be right!
In your civil war, the combatants were backed by the political and military apparatus of entire states. The civil war was not fought by spontaneously-assembled private citizen militia.
In that case, the rebellious portion of the military could fight the tyranny. Tell me why, in that case, private citizens would need guns. And explain to me how those private citizens could outfight trained and equipped military personnel.
Tyranny would presumably involve dispensing with the current Constitution, wouldn't it?
I agree. So if there's military available and equipped to fight, remind me why private guns are so vitally important again.
from 1980 through 2000 (at least that I am aware) there were changes made but not annotated on record. I had to swear the above oath for reenlistment with the inclusion of "lawful" before orders. It was then taught (in nice long boring classes with additional training every 3-6 months depending on job or deployment, not including weekly feedback during formation or the 1Sgt soliloquy's we regularly had)
lucky you!
(no, not being facetious - consider yourself lucky or in a location that has decent manners etc)
they can be quite common depending on where you live (and perhaps time of year) and what you do (living in gang territory and not choosing colours can lead to a lot of stress for a youth...)
Because it's a protection of an inalienable right
because you can more easily defuse a potentially violent situation by being armed
because a typical 80 year old woman can't physically compete with a typical 15-30 year old felon/criminal
because you shouldn't have to be a martial artist and trained in combat to defend your life against a criminal who doesn't obey the law
because you don't know the physical or martial skill of the crimial violating your rights
the list can go on for a while, really
about a month ago my neighbor, who has already threatened to kill my wife, kids and grandkids, decided to tresspass while drunk ... the situation was defused without a shot being fired and I didn't even have to pull my weapon.
for the record, even with the historical threats and restraining order, it took police about 1.5 hours to respond due to being tied up at an accident and a domestic elsewhere in the county.
the fastest response we've ever had was half hour, mostly because the large response area and limited LEO's
1- BJS, FBI and CDC/Health statistics
2- yes, I have, and I also know that crime in the US tends to happen more often around key urban areas.
3- comparing other nations takes more than just gun deaths into consideration
I didn't say that, so don't make assumptions because of your bias
I said it happens - not that I am OK with it.
More to the point, if you've read any of the thread or my comments on the 2A, you will see that I've always advocated for dealing with the situation in effective ways that directly attack the core issues, like Violence, mental health, etc
Quick question: is it OK with you that drivers are regularly killed becuase of drinking, texting or just being stupid and young?
same situation
just because I don't see your advocacy around your area doesn't mean I can assume you're a hypocrite for not banning cars due to their volume of deaths
nope
you can't get rid of the violence until you actually address the violence in the species
how does removing the right to defend yourself against a potentially superior opponent make sense?
given that you don't know the situation, capabilities, number of opponents, or many other factors, then you should be able to have at least a fighting chance to deal with the predatory criminal.
it makes far more sense to deal with the core problems that cause the situation to become violent
the entire quoted comment
making the assumption that we're blind to the harm or willing to put up with death, etc, is completely false and based entirely on your personal bias
I know of a few gun owners (some are members here) who actively attempt to work with their local LEO's, community, representatives and senators and governors to deal with this situation in a way that doesn't infringe on anyone's rights. That latter part is important.
One of the things that certain far left fanatics seem to forget is that attempting to force others into your personal belief system is bullying and wrong. if it's that important, form a cult like everyone else and feed off of the weak: that is a protected right as well so long as the followers are operating under their own free will to stay. (religion 101).
It's hypocritical to defend the rights of people while then stripping them of their rights, so finding that common middle ground is important - and in hot topics like this, nearly impossible.
no, it's true enough for you.
I want functional working laws that can be used that don't infringe on others rights. I don't care if the issue is for LGBT, women, religion or guns: our rights are protected by the Constitution.
and mind you, I absolutely dislike religion (the codified rules normally surrounding a faith used to judge and control others, ostracize those who don't believe and literally define the term prejudice)
communication and discourse aren't defending against your tyrrany. It's for the purpose of clairfication and attempting to find a good middle ground.
Personally, knowing that you're not an American citizen simply means you're irrelevant to the construction and application of our laws. That doesn't mean I can't learn about insight, thought processes, biases, beliefs or anything else though. I know that you don't understand our adherence and defense of the 2A and it's possible that this is a cultural or similar issue.
funny how you can spot the inflamatory words in others speech but not your own.
And Ice and I don't agree on everything, or had you not noticed that?
moreover, it's not that I fear my fellow citizens: it's that I have experience dealing with criminals and the horrors that a statistically small number of people inflict upon the general populace.
My personal private gunownership has saved many lives in different ways, from feeding those who had no food to protecting those who had no means to protect themselves. I was required to maintain a private weapon because of duty and responsibilities and I continue to maintain my weapons for the same reason.
the 2A isn't just about protection against burglers - it's also about keeping the government honest, or feeding yourself and much more.
limiting the argument to just burglary is like limiting your transportation methods to horses (or moped's)
the situation isn't limited to just one event or potential threat
because you're ignorant of what the NRA does. pure and simple
the NRA isn't just the lobbying organization - that is something different than the main 501(c)3. In my area, they are very active in attempting to educate others in order to help resolve issues, including school safety. They have been since Columbine and they are more determined to be proactive now.
the "obvious steps" are your perception of the "obvious" - the problem is that you are attempting to bully, IMHO.
when you say that only your "obvious steps" are the only "obvious steps" you are attempting to state that only your opinion matters and anyone else is supportive of murder and killing. In no way are you capable of knowing the measures we're taking on or off the internet to help stop the crimes. You also assume that your "obvious steps" are functional and the only way to provide security. Banning "assault weapons" is nonsensical considering the statistics on their criminal use. Banning all guns is less logical considering the sheer volume of changes you would have to make to the Constitution as well as the funding that would be required to sieze the weapons.
2 B cont'd
Last edited:
cont'd
That is what you're doing and saying. It is also considered bullying as it's the use of coercion (and your status adds intimidation to the situation) in order to dominate over pro-gun advocates.
considering the media hype and the advocacy of the US Left to intimidate and bring punitive and other damages against pro-gun people, as well as ostracize (and in some cases outright attack or harm), how, exactly, should a person take your comments? Surely you can see that when an issue like this comes up then it will be filled with trigger words!
there is a huge difference (legally and otherwise)
it is a direct statement of fact: if you don't address the core problem, it doesn't go away
more to the point, addressing the core problem will bring a far more effective and greater result (long term and otherwise)
moreover, the Military isn't allowed except under special circumstances, and those circumstances are what would bring the problem. On a local scale (cities, etc) it's not as hard becuase you can demonstrate overwhelming force by deployment. On a nation, things ger hairy quick...
it's not like there aren't plenty of examples there...
also note: we have a sh*tload of veterans that can train up a Militia into an effective infantry or guerrilla force.
guerrila tactics are insanely effective, as demonstrated by our own history, as well as other places in the world still today
so, you're saying it's OK to use ad hominem and falsely label someone with generalized statements that are designed to prejudice a reader into accepting your opinion over those others?
That is what you're doing and saying. It is also considered bullying as it's the use of coercion (and your status adds intimidation to the situation) in order to dominate over pro-gun advocates.
considering the media hype and the advocacy of the US Left to intimidate and bring punitive and other damages against pro-gun people, as well as ostracize (and in some cases outright attack or harm), how, exactly, should a person take your comments? Surely you can see that when an issue like this comes up then it will be filled with trigger words!
I didn't state that you, specifically, were a cult leader. I said it's a common tactic of cult leaders.
there is a huge difference (legally and otherwise)
it's not a malady of us
it is a direct statement of fact: if you don't address the core problem, it doesn't go away
more to the point, addressing the core problem will bring a far more effective and greater result (long term and otherwise)
the gun ban in Australia (previously linked) has had little to no effect on violent crimes as those rates have stayed pretty much the same with normal fluctuations common to an industrial advanced nation
My point is: just because we have a standing military doesn't mean it will always side with POTUS, let alone Congress. it happened once. it can happen again if sufficiently prodded into it.
moreover, the Military isn't allowed except under special circumstances, and those circumstances are what would bring the problem. On a local scale (cities, etc) it's not as hard becuase you can demonstrate overwhelming force by deployment. On a nation, things ger hairy quick...
the Militia would do the same thing they did to the British: they would augment the military. Or, like in France (world wars), they can use guerrilla tactics to augment the Military.
it's not like there aren't plenty of examples there...
also note: we have a sh*tload of veterans that can train up a Militia into an effective infantry or guerrilla force.
right up until we put it back into it's place of importance, which was the reason I said not all the Military would blindly follow.
stated above. they would augment the military
guerrila tactics are insanely effective, as demonstrated by our own history, as well as other places in the world still today
nah he pretty much got it right
yes it is. the constitution is law. plain and simple.
no its exactly the point. you and the rest of the gun cult dont like looking at the costs of your actions but it does matter.
that is by far the single most delusional thing you've ever said in the gun debate and thats saying something. why cant you ever stick to reality and why do rely on these delusional fantasies?
They would have a ton of experience standing out in the open and shooting at fixed targets within visual range, so they'd be terrific at shooting soldiers on their lunch breaks.
Bork, you've proven your trollhood once more. Your assumption that gun owners are stupid cattle, standing in the open, is a perfect example.
The absolute stupidity rampant in your dribblings stands out in your previous post in two ways:
You assume that shooters only go to the range, and not hunters taking moving targets for the table. You stupidly say "within visual range", when none but another fool would suggest that hunters fire blindly into thickets and over hills, just to destroy something, anything.
You deny reason, and when confronted by it, you revert to trolling or shouting at people who, thankfully, don't share your narrow-minded world view.
(Notice, James R, that I didn't take the shortcut this time and call a spade a spade. Why argue with idiots?)
The absolute stupidity rampant in your dribblings stands out in your previous post in two ways:
You assume that shooters only go to the range, and not hunters taking moving targets for the table. You stupidly say "within visual range", when none but another fool would suggest that hunters fire blindly into thickets and over hills, just to destroy something, anything.
You deny reason, and when confronted by it, you revert to trolling or shouting at people who, thankfully, don't share your narrow-minded world view.
(Notice, James R, that I didn't take the shortcut this time and call a spade a spade. Why argue with idiots?)
I stand corrected. Shooting deer is just like shooting a trained sniper hiding in the thickets 1.5 miles away.
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
has anyone ever done a gun distribution map ?
showing where all the guns are in the usa ?
i do not mean military weapons.
i mean civilian guns...the legally registered ones including the illegal found/confiscated ones by police.
it seems very pertinent to the discusion around access as access is accepted by both sides as being an important point to be regulated.
... obviousely cross matched with population density and city vs rural areas to get an idea of what amount of guns are inside built up urban areas opposed to rural.
it would seem worth while to get an idea of immersion/saturation point of urban areas where guns may more easily be picked up by children or dropped and/or accidential shootings.
showing where all the guns are in the usa ?
i do not mean military weapons.
i mean civilian guns...the legally registered ones including the illegal found/confiscated ones by police.
it seems very pertinent to the discusion around access as access is accepted by both sides as being an important point to be regulated.
... obviousely cross matched with population density and city vs rural areas to get an idea of what amount of guns are inside built up urban areas opposed to rural.
it would seem worth while to get an idea of immersion/saturation point of urban areas where guns may more easily be picked up by children or dropped and/or accidential shootings.
And the rhetoric starts its inevitable slide.
Nobody was talking about "legal documents". Why did you slide to that weird and irrelevant term? I think you know why, frankly - I think you are aware of what is visible in that kind of response.
To repeat: They are not laws. There is no penalty, for example, for breaking them - the word is not even used (nobody "breaks" the First Amendment, say).
No, it doesn't. It has almost nothing to do with it - never has.
That's a fine truism. Congratulations.
Take a good, long, look at that.
That's trolling - you've descended to simple trolling, apparently unable to formulate anything in the way of actual response. There is no sign whatsoever you even read the post you quoted, let alone with comprehension, or any other post of mine on this forum.
And then the question becomes: Why? What goes wrong in the mental operations of literate, otherwise sane human beings that they produce shitheaded trollposts like that, in a scientific discussion forum, on this particular topic?
Because that is my nomination for the central reason gun control is so difficult in the US: "bothsides" are actually dominated by that approach, minority and whack though it may be. And sane or reasonable people - the great majority, in the US (although more authoritarian, statistically, than most) - are simply not going to go along with it. Anything tarred by association with that kind of approach is going to have a difficult time getting political traction.
I'm arguing no such thing. Not even close.
What is your problem? That's a serious, directly relevant thread question - directly applicable to the OP.
Last edited: